quote: Originally, decay-prevention tests with fluoride were carried out with calcium fluoride, yet sodium fluoride is the chemical added to city water supplies. Sodium fluoride is an extremely toxic by-product of the aluminum industry and was expensive to dispose of until cities were persuaded to put it in the public water for tooth decay prevention. Up until this time, its primary use was as rat poison. After it was approved for use in city water supplies, the price of sodium fluoride went up 1,000% almost overnight. Many tests have been performed with sodium fluoride; some indicate improved teeth while others show a worsening effect. As a result of research in Europe, sodium fluoride treatment of water is now illegal in Sweden, Denmark, and Holland, Germany and Belgium have discontinued their fluoride experiments on the human population, and France and Norway have never found sufficient evidence to warrant water fluoridation. In truth, most tests are difficult to interpret since the mineral content of the water itself is one of the deciding factors. If there is adequate calcium in water, fluoride will form calcium fluoride, which may be of some benefit. Nevertheless, studies indicate that fluoride per se is one of nature's principal aging factors.

If I remember my High School Chemistry correctly, sodium fluoride is a salt. when it dissolves in water it disassociates into a sodium ion (Na+) and a fluoride ion (F-). Calcium Fluoride is also a salt, except it dissociates into a calcium and fluoride ions (Ca+ and F-)

This ions are in solution, separated from each other and weakly bound to the water molecules.

Sodium is a fairly common ion in our diet. table salt and all of that. And if you live in an area with hard water, then you probably know just how much calcium is in our water supply. (Donít most water softeners simply replace the calcium with sodium?)

The chemistry of the fluoride ion in solution should be exactly the same, regardless if it was originally a NaF salt or a CaF salt. So how could there be such a huge difference in the safety of the two additives?

Oh, and by the way. . .

Speaking of rat poison, did you know that one of the most widely prescribed cardiac medications, [link=http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/warfarin.htm]Warfarin[/link], is also the principle ingredient of DeCon rat bait?

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Wolf_Larson on 08-08-2003]

Mech

Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA

Sat Aug 09, 2003 4:42 am

I don't know but I'm avoiding flouride like the plague.

Wolf_Larson

Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 442
Location: The Sea

Sat Aug 09, 2003 5:09 am

quote:Almost posted by Mech:
I don't know but I'm avoiding flouride like the plaque.

CONSPIRACY_MAN

Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 190
Location: Canberra Australia

Mon Sep 08, 2003 7:47 am

Fluoridation Can't Stop Tooth Erosion.

A new Irish government study shows that fluoridation has no protective effect on dental erosion, according to a September 7, 2003 article in Ireland's "Times on Sunday," by Jan Battles.

Dentists say tooth erosion, which is irreversible, is a growing problem in Ireland. If unchecked, the hard tissue of the teeth can be worn down to the internal pulp layer.

Dental erosion caused mostly by drinking sugary and/or acidic foods such as soda is also a growing problem in the United States and the United Kingdom. In fact, dentists report rates as high as 90% in some U.S. Native American child populations. Organized dentistry have convinced most legislators that the solution is to increase water fluoridation.

But Ireland is already 73% fluoridation. Battles reports that Ireland's "five-year-olds living in fluoridated areas of Cork had the same degree of erosion of their teeth as those from non-fluoridated communities."

Researchers at the Oral Health Services Research Centre in Cork conducted the study. According to the "Times on Sunday," one of the report's authors said, "We didn't see any difference between the fluoridated and non-fluoridated groups."

According to Battles:

"Almost half of the youngsters (47%) participating in the pilot study suffered some erosion of their teeth, and in one in five cases it had progressed through the enamel to the dentine or pulp layers. The study, which assessed 202 five-year-olds, was the first to check the rate of dental erosion in the population."

"Children were selected on whether they attended a school with a fluoridated or non-fluoridated water supply. Researchers also recorded whether the child's home water supply was fluoridated. Children with partial fluoride history were excluded from the analysis."

"The report concluded that 'no statistical difference existed between the fluoridated and non-fluoridated groups' even though less erosion would have been expected in the fluoridated group."

"The proportion of children in the fluoridated group with any erosion was 47% compared with 43% in the non-fluoridated population. The erosion extended to the dentine in 21% of children in fluoridated areas compared to 17% of those in non-fluoridated cases."

"The amount of soft drinks a child consumed was a factor. The five-year-olds who drank carbonated drinks once a day or more had significantly more dental erosion to dentine level (29%) than those who consumed carbonated drinks less than once a day (17%)."

"Dental erosion leaves the surface of teeth looking very smooth and glassy, and over time it becomes thinner and eventually chips and cracks."

More than half of youngsters in Britain suffer from tooth decay. A survey on the link between dental health and diet, suggests children still eat huge amounts of sugary and acidic food - a trend which actually increases with age - even though older children are more aware sweets and fizzy drinks damage their teeth(a)

Tooth decay is rampant in the UK and "sugary drinks are the number one culprit," Dr. Gill Hawley, senior dental officer at Mancunian Community Healthcare NHS Trust is quoted in the BBC which also reports, "She said some parents sent their young children to bed with a bottle full of sugary squash to keep them quiet, causing the maximum damage to their teeth." (b)

66% of Scottish children drink fizzy drinks on a daily basis. More than 60 per cent of children from deprived areas in Scotland have dental disease by the age of three - and obesity levels are rising year on year.
Not only has consumption of sugary fizzy drinks increased, but children aged 11 to 15 are eating more sweets. More than three-quarters of them eat confectionery on a daily basis.(c)

And in Wales: "Findings from a survey of children's lunchboxes by the Food Standards Agency ... suggested that nine out of 10 children, whose packed lunches contained high levels of sugary foods, were eating twice the recommended daily levels of sugar. With a Monday-to-Friday school-day diet of chocolate bars, biscuits, fizzy drinks and high-sugar juice drinks, not to mention the common weekend sweet treats, is it any wonder that our children's dental health is deteriorating instead of improving?"(d)

Incredibly , September 8, 2003, the UK House of Commons will probably vote to allow the UK's water supply to be fluoridated to stop tooth rot from sugary drinks despite the Irish and other studies which show fluoridation does not stop tooth erosion.

Even American children's who are "fluoride protected" from fluoridated water supplies, toothpaste, dental products and an over-fluoridated food supply display eroded teeth from poor food choices.

For example (1)

Low-income pre-schoolers, from northern Manhattan, New York City (100% fluoridated), have significantly more cavities than pre-schoolers nationwide (62% fluoridated) and average more tooth decay than the entire U.S. population. Researchers report about one third of northern Manhattan's pre-school children studied averaged 6.39 decayed or filled tooth surfaces.

Maryland's poor 3- to 5-year-old's cavity rates are even worse. Despite Maryland's significant fluoridation rate (85.8%), "(t)he percentage of children with (cavities) increased by age, from 43% for three-year-olds to 62% for four-year-olds," report Maryland researchers.

"It may...be that fluoridation of drinking water does not have a strong protective effect against early childhood caries (cavities)," reports dentist Howard Pollick, University of California, and colleagues, in the Winter 2003 Journal of Public Health Dentistry.(2)

The Absurdities Of Water Fluoridation
By Paul Connett, PhD
Prison Planet.com
10-1-3

Water fluoridation is a peculiarly American phenomenon. It started at a time when Asbestos lined our pipes, lead was added to gasoline, PCBs filled our transformers and DDT was deemed so "safe and effective" that officials felt no qualms spraying kids in school classrooms and seated at picnic tables. One by one all these chemicals have been banned, but fluoridation remains untouched.

For over 50 years US government officials have confidently and enthusiastically claimed that fluoridation is "safe and effective".

However, they are seldom prepared to defend the practice in open public debate. Actually, there are so many arguments against fluoridation that it can get overwhelming.

To simplify things it helps to separate the ethical from the scientific arguments.

For those for whom ethical concerns are paramount, the issue of fluoridation is very simple to resolve. It is simply not ethical; we simply shouldn't be forcing medication on people without their "informed consent". The bad news, is that ethical arguments are not very influential in Washington, DC unless politicians are very conscious of millions of people watching them. The good news is that the ethical arguments are buttressed by solid common sense arguments and scientific studies which convincingly show that fluoridation is neither "safe and effective" nor necessary. I have summarized the arguments in several categories:

Fluoridation is UNETHICAL because:

1) It violates the individual's right to informed consent to medication.

2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient.

3) The municipality cannot track each individual's response.

4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may benefit.

5) It violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation.

As stated by the recent recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000), Dr. Arvid Carlsson:

"I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history...Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication - of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day - to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy."

As stated by Dr. Peter Mansfield, a physician from the UK and advisory board member of the recent government review of fluoridation (McDonagh et al 2000):

"No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay. ' It is a preposterous notion."

Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY because:

1) Children can have perfectly good teeth without being exposed to fluoride.

2) The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.

3) The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation, but has been equally successful as the US, if not more so, in tackling tooth decay.

4) If fluoride was necessary for strong teeth one would expect to find it in breast milk, but the level there is 0.01 ppm , which is 100 times LESS than in fluoridated tap water (IOM, 1997).

5) Children in non-fluoridated communities are already getting the so-called "optimal" doses from other sources (Heller et al, 1997). In fact, many are already being over-exposed to fluoride.

2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).

3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).

4) The largest survey conducted in the US showed only a minute difference in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).

5) The worst tooth decay in the United States occurs in the poor neighborhoods of our largest cities, the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades.

6) When fluoridation has been halted in communities in Finland, former East Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay did not go up but continued to go down (Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000).

Fluoridation is UNSAFE because:

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly. (See studies)

2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).

3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).

4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.

5) In animal studies, fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).

6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).

7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.

The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE, because:

1) It will go to all households, and the poor cannot afford to avoid it, if they want to, because they will not be able to purchase bottled water or expensive removal equipment.

2) The poor are more likely to suffer poor nutrition which is known to make children more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; ATSDR 1993; Teotia et al, 1998).

3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay the costs of those who are unfortunate enough to get dental fluorosis severe enough to require expensive treatment.

Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE because:

1) Only a small fraction of the water fluoridated actually reaches the target. Most of it ends up being used to wash the dishes, to flush the toilet or to water our lawns and gardens.

2) It would be totally cost-prohibitive to use pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride (the substance which has been tested) as a fluoridating agent for the public water supply. Water fluoridation is artificially cheap because, unknown to most people, the fluoridating agent is an unpurified hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.

3) If it was deemed appropriate to swallow fluoride (even though its major benefits are topical not systemic) a safer and more cost-effective approach would be to provide fluoridated bottle water in supermarkets free of charge. This approach would allow both the quality and the dose to be controlled. Moreover, it would not force it on people who don't want it.

Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED. For example:

1) In 1950, the US Public Health Service enthusiastically endorsed fluoridation before one single trial had been completed.

2) Even though we are getting many more sources of fluoride today than we were in 1945, the so called "optimal concentration" of 1 ppm has remained unchanged.

3) The US Public health Service has never felt obliged to monitor the fluoride levels in our bones even though they have known for years that 50% of the fluoride we swallow each day accumulates there.

4) Officials that promote fluoridation never check to see what the levels of dental fluorosis are in the communities before they fluoridate, even though they know that this level indicates whether children are being overdosed or not.

5) No US agency has yet to respond to Luke's finding that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland, even though her finding was published in 1994 (abstract), 1997 (Ph. D. thesis), 1998 (paper presented at conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research), and 2001 (published in Caries Research).

6) The CDC's 1999, 2001 reports advocating fluoridation were both six years out of date in the research they cited on health concerns.

Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE.

The proponents of water fluoridation refuse to defend this practice in open debate because they know that they would lose that debate. A vast majority of the health officials around the US and in other countries who promote water fluoridation do so based upon someone else's advice and not based upon a first hand familiarity with the scientific literature. This second hand information produces second rate confidence when they are challenged to defend their position. Their position has more to do with faith than it does with reason.

Those who pull the strings of these public health 'puppets', do know the issues, and are cynically playing for time and hoping that they can continue to fool people with the recitation of a long list of "authorities" which support fluoridation instead of engaging the key issues. As Brian Martin made clear in his book Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate (1991), the promotion of fluoridation is based upon the exercise of political power not on rational analysis. The question to answer, therefore, is: "Why is the US Public Health Service choosing to exercise its power in this way?"

Motivations - especially those which have operated over several generations of decision makers - are always difficult to ascertain. However, whether intended or not, fluoridation has served to distract us from several key issues. It has distracted us from:

a) The failure of one of the richest countries in the world to provide decent dental care for poor people.

b) The failure of 80% of American dentists to treat children on Medicaid.

c) The failure of the public health community to fight the huge over consumption of sugary foods by our nation's children, even to the point of turning a blind eye to the wholesale introduction of soft drink machines into our schools. Their attitude seems to be if fluoride can stop dental decay why bother controlling sugar intake.

d) The failure to adequately address the health and ecological effects of fluoride pollution from large industry. Despite the damage which fluoride pollution has caused, and is still causing, few environmentalists have ever conceived of fluoride as a 'pollutant.'

e) The failure of the US EPA to develop a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in water which can be scientifically defended.

f) The fact that more and more organofluorine compounds are being introduced into commerce in the form of plastics, pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Despite the fact that some of these compounds pose just as much a threat to our health and environment as their chlorinated and brominated counterparts (i.e. they are highly persistent and fat soluble and many accumulate in the food chains and our body fat), those organizations and agencies which have acted to limit the wide-scale dissemination of these other halogenated products, seem to have a blind spot for the dangers posed by organofluorine compounds.

So, while fluoridation is neither effective nor safe, it continues to provide a convenient cover for many of the interests which stand to profit from the public being misinformed about fluoride.

Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. As with the case of mercury amalgams, it is difficult for institutions such as the American Dental Association to concede health risks because of the liabilities waiting in the wings if they were to do so.

However, difficult as it may be, it is nonetheless essential - in order to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm - that the US Government begin to move away from its anachronistic, and increasingly absurd, status quo on this issue. There are precedents. They were able to do this with hormone replacement therapy.

But getting any honest action out of the US Government on this is going to be difficult. Effecting change is like driving a nail through wood - science can sharpen the nail but we need the weight of public opinion to drive it home. Thus, it is going to require a sustained effort to educate the American people and then recruiting their help to put sustained pressure on our political representatives. At the very least we need a moratorium on fluoridation (which simply means turning off the tap for a few months) until there has been a full Congressional hearing on the key issues with testimony offered by scientists on both sides. With the issue of education we are in better shape than ever before. Most of the key studies are available on the internet and there are videotaped interviews with many of the scientists and protagonists whose work has been so important to a modern re-evaluation of this issue.

With this new information, more and more communities are rejecting new fluoridation proposals at the local level. On the national level, there have been some hopeful developments as well, such as the EPA Headquarters Union coming out against fluoridation and the Sierra Club seeking to have the issue re-examined. However, there is still a huge need for other national groups to get involved in order to make this the national issue it desperately needs to be.

I hope that if there are RFW readers who disagree with me on this, they will rebut these arguments. If they can't than I hope they will get off the fence and help end one of the silliest policies ever inflicted on the citizens of the US. It is time to end this folly of water fluoridation without further delay. It is not going to be easy.

Fluoridation represents a very powerful "belief system" backed up by special interests and by entrenched governmental power and influence.

June 1965: Quote from Alfred Taylor, Ph.D, in a scientific letter
appearing in the Oct. 2, 1965 issue of Saturday Review:

" ... My contact with fluoridation came about as a result of cancer
research. In one project, various chemicals were added to the
drinking water of mice susceptible to cancer in order to check the
responsibility that some chemicals might delay the onset of the
disease or prevent it altogether. Among the chemicals used in this
research was sodium fluoride.

In the first two preliminary tests, the results obtained indicated
that mice drinking fluoridated water tended to develop cancer at an
earlier age as compared with control animals maintained on
fluoride-free water. These earlier tests were followed by further
investigations so that altogether, twelve experiments involving 645
mice were used in this research.

"The data indicated that drinking water with as little as 1 PPM
shortened the life span of mice an average of nine per cent. This
was true whether death was due to cancer or non-cancerous diseases.
The only notice proponents of fluoridation gave to this work was to
discredit it as much as possible. ... In experiments where the drug
was added directly to suspensions of cancer tissue before
inoculation into eggs or mice, sodium fluoride stimulated the
growth of cancer tissue in concentrations of one part in more than
20 million. Scientists at Cambridge University (British Medical
Journal, Oct 26, 1963) discovered that concentrations of sodium
fluoride as low as one part in ten million inhibited the growth of
a culture of human tissue. ... the growing weight of scientific
evidence that water-borne fluorides, even at 1 ppm, have toxic
possibilities must finally be recognized." ALFRED TAYLOR, Ph.D.,
Clayton Foundation, Biochemical Institute, University of Texas,
Austin Texas, 1965.

[Note: The "Environmental Protection Agency" [EPA] has raised the
level of fluoride in water to 4 ppm--more than allowed in swimming
pools. The EPA is a contributor to eugenics goals.]

JAPANESE FLUORIDE-RELATED CANCER RESEARCH

24 August, 1982: The Japan Times published an article expressing
concern about potential hazards of topical fluoride applications (9000
ppm) to teeth, and fluoride mouth rinses (250-500 ppm) has prompted
researchers at the Nippon Dental College in Tokyo to investigate
effects of fluoride on hamster fetal cell cultures, with results that
can only be described as very disturbing. At the August '82 meeting of
the Japanese Society for Cancer Research, Associate Professor of
Pharmacology Taketi Tsutsui and his colleague, Dr. Maizumi, reported
that 24-hour contact with sodium fluoride solutions at concentrations
of 34, 45, and 57 ppm (fluorine ion), results in morphological changes
and malignant transformations in second-generation hamster fetal
cells. After the one-day fluoride treatment, one group of cells was
cultured for one week and then fixed and stained for study. Survival
rates of 90, 50 and 30% were found for the exposure to 34, 45, and 57
ppm respectively, with morphological changes of 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0% in
the surviving colonies. In the untreated control cultures, the
incidence of abnormalities was significantly lower -- only 0.03% or
less.

In another series of experiments, cells from the 34 and 45-ppm
fluoride treatments were found to have acquired the ability to
proliferate in soft agar for an additional 50 to 200 days. These cells
were then shown to have developed a strong tumor-forming capacity. In
the untreated control cultures, neither proliferated in soft agar nor
acquisition of tumor-forming capacity were observed, and only one of
four cultures had transformed into one having infinite proliferative
characteristics.

Between 100 and 200 days after the sodium fluoride treatment, cells
from the 34 and 45-ppm treated cultures were transplanted subdermally
into each of two 10-hamster groups. The animals were then observed for
the appearance of tumors. All surviving three hamsters in the group
that received cells from the 34-ppm treated culture developed cancer
(fibro-carcinoma) at the site of injection. Likewise, all eight
surviving hamsters receiving the 45-ppm treated cells developed
cancer. The other hamsters in both groups died from causes other than
cancer, before the experiments were completed. None of the hamsters in
the control group that received the untreated cells, developed cancer.

"The terrifying conclusion of the studies was that fluorine greatly
induced a cancer tumor growth. If doctors and the public can be
made aware of this catastrophe, fluoridation shall end quickly. It
will someday be recognized as the most lethal and stupid "Health
Program" ever conceived by the mind of man, witch doctors and
blood-letters not excepted."

WHEN DID THIS FLUORIDATION MADNESS BEGIN?

The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water was found in
Germany's Nazi prison camps, which were maintained partly by I.G.
Farben. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride's supposed
effect on children's teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating
water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force them into
calm submission. (Ref. book: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G.
Farben" by Joseph Borkin.

I.G. FARBEN DEVELOPED FLUORINATED SARIN AND SOMAN NERVE GAS: The name
"SARIN" is an acronym of the names of the four key I.G. Farben
employees involved in its initial chemical formulation and production:
Schrader, Ambros, Rudriger, and Van Der Linde. Otto Ambros was the
production chief of I.G. Farben's poison gas facilities in Germany.
(See Ambros' photo on p. 286 of "World Without Cancer" by G. Edward
Griffin.)

Sarin was developed to replace deadly Malathion and Zyklon B nerve
gases, specifically with the intent to exterminate millions of people.
Fluoride-bearing Sarin was reportedly so strong, "it made Zyklon B
look like underarm deodorant." (The Dickinson Statement, "Health
Consciousness", October 1988)

PROFESSIONAL TESTIMONY:

The following letter was received by the Lee Foundation for
Nutritional Research, Milwaukee Wisconsin, on 2 October 1954, from Mr.
Charles Perkins, a chemist:

"I have your letter of September 29 asking for further
documentation regarding a statement made in my book, The Truth
About Water Fluoridation, to the effect that the idea of water
fluoridation was brought to England from Russia by the Russian
Communist Kreminoff.

[Note: Dr. Horowitz, in "Healing Codes for the Biological
Apocalypse" says Hitler's elite escaped through underground tunnels,
changed their names to Jewish names, and went to various nations,
including America. Where Hitler failed, they vow to succeed. ]

"In the 1930's, Hitler and the German Nazi's envisioned a world to
be dominated and controlled by a Nazi philosophy of pan-Germanism.
The German chemists worked out a very ingenious and far-reaching
plan of mass-control which was submitted to and adopted by the
German General Staff. This plan was to control the population in
any given area through mass medication of drinking water supplies.
By this method they could control the population in whole areas,
reduce population by water medication that would produce sterility
in women, and so on. In this scheme of mass-control, sodium
fluoride occupied a prominent place. ...,

"Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time
reduce an individual's power to resist domination, by slowly
poisoning and narcotizing a certain area of the brain, thus making
him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. [A
convenient invisible lobotomy]

[Note: lobotomy is cutting out part of one's brain]

"The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit
children's teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways
in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far
more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to
reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and
loss of liberty.

"When the Nazis under Hitler decided to go into Poland, both the
German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged
scientific and military ideas, plans, and personnel, and the scheme
of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the
Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plan to
communize the world. ...

"I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an
official of the great Farben chemical industries and was also
prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the
earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20
years' research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and
pathology of fluorine--any person who drinks artificially
fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again
be the same person mentally or physically." CHARLES E. PERKINS,
Chemist, 2 October 1954.

Quoting Einstein's nephew, Dr. E.H. Bronner (a chemist who had also
been a prisoner of war during WWII) in a letter printed in The
Catholic Mirror, Springfield, MA, January 1952:

"It appears that the citizens of Massachusetts are among the 'next'
on the agenda of the water poisoners. "There is a sinister network
of subversive agents, Godless 'intellectual' parasites, working in
our country today whose ramifications grow more extensive, more
successful and more alarming each new year and whose true objective
is to demoralize, paralyze and destroy our great Republic--from
within if they can, according to their plan--for their own
possession. "The tragic success they have already attained in their
long siege to destroy the moral fiber of American life is now one
of their most potent footholds towards their own ultimate victory
over us. "Fluoridation of our community water systems can well
become their most subtle weapon for our sure physical and mental
deterioration.

"We discussed in these schools, the complete art of revolution: the
seizure of the main utilities, such as light, power, gas, and
water, but it was felt by the leadership that if a program of
fluoridating of the water could be carried out in the nation, it
would go a long way toward the advancement of the revolution. "The
above statements are true." Oliver Kenneth Goff.

[Note: Much of the electricity in America is under a "grid", or
controlled.]

(Signed & notarized 6/22/57.)

20 years after Mr. Goff was indoctrinated on the Communist purposes of
fluoridating U.S. water supplies, in New York there appeared an
article in the 13 April 1956 issue of THE COMMUNIST DAILY WORKER
entitled "Facts Spur Campaign for Fluoridation Here":

"Politicians of the [New York] City Council and Board of Estimate
are timid men who are catering to misguided sentiment, outmoded
tradition, and backward fears of the unscientific. A widespread
educational campaign among both the politicians and people on the
- value of the Board of Health's program for fluoridation is
certainly indicated."

[Note: Propaganda is often aimed at the influential decision makers
-- Schools, Universities, Laws, and Medicine.]

FLUORIDE POLITICS

1952: The Delaney Committee 82nd Congress Hearings on Fluoride
revealed that there was no actual scientific basis for the
fluoridation of water supplies in the prevention of tooth decay. The
recommendation of the Committee was that more research be done, before
proceeding with this national mass medication. Their recommendation
was totally ignored.

1953: In a joint speech, U.S. Surgeon-General Scheele and Health,
Education & Welfare Undersecretary Nelson (follow the money)
Rockefeller announced hopeful plans to put more medicine than just
fluoride into the U.S. water supplies:

"Dr. Scheele, in discussing mass-application methods for preventing
-non-infectious diseases, said a case in point was fluoridation of
water supplies to reduce tooth decay. Nearly 800 cities throughout
the country have adopted the technique during the past 10 years, he
said. Such a community-wide attack on "far more serious diseases
than dental decay" probably will be forthcoming after laboratory
tests have paved the way, he predicted." (Paterson Evening News,
11/6/53)

1950's comment by Edward L. Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud and PR
man for the fluoridation project under Oscar Ewing:

[Freud was a member of this subversive party]

"... the most direct way to reach the mind of the HERD is through
the leaders. ... Public Health Officers cannot afford the
professional modesty professed by physicians. A redefinition of
ethics is necessary.... and the subject matter of the propaganda
need not necessarily be true." (Book: Crystallizing Public Opinion,
by E. L. Bernays.)

[Note: "Re-definition of ethics" means the changing of God's laws
into what the Bible prophecies as "doctrines of man and of demons".
This means that "good is made to look like evil, and evil is made to
look like good." When man does evil, judgment comes to a nation.]

Fluoride is a very strong poison that accumulates in our body. It is a
stronger poison than Lead and even Uranium. The Fluoride is not
efficient at all against dental cavities. Fluoride leads among other
things to reduced fertility. It affects the brain to make us more
docile, sheep-like and even unwilling to resist tyrants... It was used
as a pacifier of prisoners in the Gulag archipelago in Russia and in
prisons in Nazi-Germany. Communists had containers with Fluoride in
some areas around the world ready to contaminate drinking water at
command. It is the only efficient part of the nerve gas Sarin and a
very efficient RAT POISON.

[Note: The European Union plans to control all vitamins, minerals,
and natural food medicines through "Codex". This is the world
government prophesied in Revelations. By controlling God-made natural
medicines, they can easily achieve their "population control"/eugenics
agenda to murder millions.]